SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the come-fly-the-discriminatory-skies dept.
TechDirt reports
Thanks to FOIA requests (and lawsuits), the ACLU has gathered enough documents to provide a comprehensive report [PDF] on the worthlessness of the TSA's "Behavioral Detection" program. Meant to give the agency a better way of proactively thwarting acts of terrorism, the program instead opts for lazy profiling, dubious readings of behavioral cues, and junk science.
The documents[1] show the evolution of the behavior detection program and make clear the extent to which it is a program of surveillance of unsuspecting travelers based on unreliable indicators. "Behavior detection officers", some of them dressed in plain clothes, scrutinize travelers at airports for over 90 behaviors that the TSA associates with stress, fear, or deception, looking for what the TSA calls signs of "mal-intent". The reliability of these so-called indicators is not supported by the scientific studies in the TSA files. The behavior detection officers may then engage travelers in "casual conversation" that is actually an effort to probe the basis for any purported signs of deception. When the officers think they perceive those behaviors, they follow the travelers, subject them to additional screening, and at times bring in law enforcement officers who can investigate them further.
The TSA has repeatedly claimed that the behavior detection program is grounded in valid science, but the records that the ACLU obtained show that the TSA has in its possession a significant body of research that contradicts those claims.
[1] Duplicate link in TFA.
[Ed. Note: Non mobile link here to source article here.]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sulla on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:40PM
Phone is acting up so I am not going to look for a citation, hoping someone else here also heard the same thing. I thought that the isrealies did a behaviorial checkpoint thing that was working pretty well? Last saw an article a few years back as an alternative to the cancer machines.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday February 12 2017, @11:10PM
For Israel conditions, is real - they are in as close to real war conditions as one can get during time of "peace" (this is what you get when pissing your neighbours, but that's another story).
I'm sure they get heaps of false positives as well, just that for people in the number of ten millions, the absolute social cost is rather small. And yes, they do use elements of racial profiling, because it makes sense in their conditions.
For US conditions, is fake. It's "security theatre", "make believe" as it would be.
The social dollar cost of "better safe than sorry" is so much higher than any terrorist attack can cause.
What's worse: letting aside the undisputed rate of false positives, the rate of false negatives is so high that it's next to ineffective at "better safe than sorry" - 95% failures to detect [securitydebrief.com]
TSA is a response on the line of "Those amateur terrorists! Let us show how the govt can be so much better of terrorizing our citizens at a cost so much higher than any of terrorist can dream of. Better still, the citizens pay for it and we risk nothing. Now, that is how the terror business is to be conducted efficiently".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @11:25PM
Yuuuuup. I am shocked that any soylentil would think TSA is useful.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 13 2017, @12:01AM
To be honest, the question was "If it's based on junk science, why do behavioural screening seems to work for Israel and fails in US conditions?"
The answer is "While likely it produces the same rate of false positives - a bit higher success rate than pure random, I assume - the Israelis use it as a pretext for thorough searches because they can afford it and the risk of not conducting thorough searches outweighs the cost. Plus, due to the circumstances, Israel doesn't shy from racial profiling".
Security is always a trade-of between the cost of staying secure and the risk one takes for staying un/less-secure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @01:02AM
Its more like the behavioural stuff israel does is far more comprehensive.
The TSA's BDOs are all into doing random encounters with people and looking for bullshit like micro-tells. I almost never fly, but the one time I did about 5 years ago I ran into a BDO guy. He didn't say that's what he was doing, but it was so ridiculously obvious in how he tried to engage me in "disarming conversation." It was all I could do to hold back from telling him I knew he was trying to BDO me, I figured giving him shit about it would just get me into shit that I didn't need.
The israel stuff starts with observing the vehicle as it approaches the airport and watching each person each step of the way from there.
Also they've got background dossiers on everyone with a ticket, and not half-assed shit like the TSA has for people that pay $99 to sign-up for "pre-check."
Comparing israel's airport security to the TSA is like comparing the US navy to the harbor patrol, for arizona.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Monday February 13 2017, @01:12AM
Thanks, that is what I was getting at. Whole thing is security theater designed to take away more freedoms without making anything more secure.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 13 2017, @12:42AM
Israel unabashedly profiles people. And, mostly, it works.
The US refuses to profile people, so they look around for other methods - and shockingly, it turns out that it's just another form of profiling. Except, it doesn't work for shit. Maybe it's time we dropped the pretenses, and take some lessons from Israel. Let's start openly profiling, but first take some lessons from Israel. It will probably be only half as good as Israel's questionable profiling. But, at least we won't see idiot TSA agents groping Grandma and her 9 year old granddaughter at the airport. Most terrorists are military age males, for starters. Can we at least drop the full-retard approach to the "War on Terra"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @02:19AM
Pretty sure this is the item GGP is referencing.
from "60 Minutes" January 2002
The Safest Airline [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [cbsnews.com]
Note that they use college graduates (former military officers), not high school dropouts like USA.
The US refuses to profile people
In the TechDirt article, there's a list of stuff that would get a woman "special handling".
It amounts to "is female".
take some lessons from Israel
Note also from the CBS article that Israel's approach includes a **layered** perimeter.
After going through the Kansas City airport, it's clear to me that USA's airport terminals would have to be rebuilt from scratch to have any kind of actual security.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 13 2017, @11:40AM
I just realized that a lot of our people are much younger than I am. Maybe even you? Anyway - it's worth reminding the world WHY Israel is the way it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe [wikipedia.org]
It is also worth mentioning that the "shoot the hostage" approach has been attributed to the Israelis, many time. That "shoot the hostage" phrase is not quite accurate. It's more accurate to say "The hostages are already dead." Since you can't kill a dead man, whether he is walking around or not, there is simply no reason NOT to shoot into his vicinity.
Politically, I don't like the Israelies a whole lot. But, militarily, I almost admire them. As your link points out, they're serious. There are no half measures with them. Methods are either effective, or ineffective - and profiling has proven pretty damned effective. Yeah, they get a lot of false positives. They'll grill an innocent twit for hours, or days, until they are CONVINCED that twit is just a twit.
But the alternatives really suck.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday February 13 2017, @12:16PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @05:04PM
the innocent are always twits to an authoritarian
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 13 2017, @10:47PM
You, however, are a twit who is not innocent.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @07:00AM
But, at least we won't see idiot TSA agents groping Grandma and her 9 year old granddaughter at the airport. Most terrorists are military age males, for starters.
As soon as you make an exception it becomes a vulnerability.
They don't even have to be aware of their participation. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday February 13 2017, @08:10AM
First, outside of the SJW world, there is nothing wrong with profiling. Your young, swarthy male is immensely more likely to be a threat than your ancient, asian grandmother. While some random checks are essential, concentrating limited resources on the demographics more likely to pose threats is common sense.
That said, the unstated problem are false positives. People act like false positives are not a problem, but that is simply not true. False positives obviously inconvenience the people targeted; any profiled groups will be overrepresented here. Far worse (imho): false positives destroy trust in the capabilities of the system.
Car analogy (and a true one): My car has some sensor for ice on the road, and shrills a warning when this is detected. It is apparently based mainly on temperature, so it goes off *all the time* when the temperature is around freezing, even if the road is absolutely dry. These false positives have conditioned me to ignore the damned thing. Some day, when there really is ice, the warning will be useless.
When what you're doing doesn't work (and TSA-style security doesn't work [cnn.com]), then you should do something different. Current practice generates false positives, while missing actual weapons and explosives. It doesn't work. So what can we do?
Personally, I'm all for completely eliminating security checks. Armor the cockpits (already done), so that terrorists cannot take over a plane, and planes are - frankly - no longer attractive targets. Someone wanting to kill lots of people is more likely to target the TSA security lines, or a sports arena, or a night club, or any of a hundred other targets. If planes are no longer attractive targets, frankly, we should simply eliminate the security entirely. That will eliminate those TSA lines, and return literally billions of hours of travellers' lives every year. If you cannot imagine eliminating security entirely, then put an armed air marshal on every flight - that will still be less expensive, and still save those billions of hours.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @09:42AM
First, outside of the SJW world,
Get a room already.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday February 13 2017, @12:20PM
Your young, swarthy male is immensely more likely to be a threat than your ancient, asian grandmother
He might be the one that's going to blow up the plane, but if she's less likely to be checked then it makes sense for him to have her carry the bomb through security. She doesn't even have to be booked on the same flight, just one leaving within a few hours of his. And if the bomb is found on her, she can always claim some nice man asked him to look after it for her and she's so old and confused that she forgot that she was still carrying it (and probably get away with it). The same applies to small children.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday February 13 2017, @10:35AM
Questionable. I say that as someone with Palestinian relatives.
> Most terrorists are military age males, for starters.
So why did Israel unabashedly flag females who are in relationships but flying alone as being a threat?
Because they were mules, if you can't work it out for yourself. Perhaps the females have started to think for themselves now and are refusing to do the suicide missions at the behest of the males that previously dominated them, and so this pattern is seen less often, but it was a pattern a couple of decades ago.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves